Munich pilot reports [Oncoming Plane]

[jarlrmai]

Great find.

I've tweaked the timing a bit here to match the ground motion and the stars better. 12x Sim speed.

View attachment 84918
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...azonaws.com/1/MunichPlanes/20251009_100624.js

So the SCU and "missing" planes, solved in half a day or less probably twice now from Dr. Buettener, here and the Klein video (using the data from their own github)

Why do they keep missing planes?

 

[Mick West]

Matching one of the earlier still images where you can see the stars better.

https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...com/1/Munich Earlier Stars/20251009_102433.js

The camera here has a -2.5° roll.

The horizon looks too low from a combination of clouds/haze and refraction

 

[jarlrmai]

Dr Buettner replied to my email. He was reluctant to confirm or deny if the date & flight we had found is the right one - but he did say that he had also found a candidate flight flying in the opposite direction, but the pilots/co-pilot were adamant that the object could not have been a plane - so he considers this case 'unresolved'.

But his own presentation says he ruled that out using FlightRadar24 data so that response does not match the article.

So which is it Dr. Buettener?

 

[Mick West]

I found a Black Marble Tileset and added it as a Terrain Map Type.

Syncing the lights with the motion means 16x is a better fit, which also makes more sense as it's a standard multiplier.

https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...azonaws.com/1/MunichPlanes/20251009_115510.js

I think this one is case closed!

 

[Mendel]

but the pilots/co-pilot were adamant that the object could not have been a plane

presumably not on the TCAS display, but may have been out of range while it seemed closer to the pilots

but here we can go again with "if it's not that aircraft, then where is it?" because it should be seen on that video

 

[jarlrmai]

The claim can always be that we got the wrong flight, but it would have to be denied specifically by Dr. Buettner.
Even with the landing lights off the nav and strobes would probably be visible at that distance.

One thing that strikes me is how many pilots do go-pro time-lapses of their flights? Could this be a "social media pilot"

 

[flarkey]

I've been in email comms with Dr Buettner over the last few days, and although he hasn't confirmed or denied that this is the correct date & flight, he did say that he has sent a link to this this thread to the pilots, which I doubt he would have done had this been the wrong date & flight.

I understand that the pilots are still adamant that was they saw and recorded was not an aircraft.

presumably not on the TCAS display, but may have been out of range while it seemed closer to the pilots

but here we can go again with "if it's not that aircraft, then where is it?" because it should be seen on that video

Dr Buettner did say that their 'TCAS did not go off'. Maybe we can use sitrec to measure the altitudes and tracks of TC-SOI. And if we can get the original photos with metadata we could align the video exactly and see if the encounter with TC-SOI matches exactly.

 

[Mendel]

Dr Buettner did say that their 'TCAS did not go off'.

From Mick's screenshot above, the aircraft were maintaining altitudes with 3000 ft vertical separation. Of course the TCAS wouldn't "go off", that would have been a false alarm in that situation.

https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/tcas ii v7.1 intro booklet.pdf

Two aircraft can be on opposite course with 1000ft separation, and TCAS won't mind.

My comment was whether the aircraft would've been displayed, as the system does display some aircraft that are not threats (yet). I don't know how the aircraft to include get chosen. And that's only relevant if the pilots thought to check the display, and would depend on the range it was set to.

 

[jarlrmai]

So Dr. Buettner's PDF presentation (linked earlier in the thread and available publicly via Dr. Buettner's personal github) has a high quality (possibly original) version of the video embedded in it, extracting it and analysing the metadata confirms the time and location and thus the flight is the one identified by this thread and as such the oncoming aircraft would have been visible and matches exactly the movement of the object seen in the UFO video.

Using EXIFTOOL to analyse the metadata we can see that an iPhone 13 was used in time-lapse mode to record this video and the time/date and location tags all match for the previously identified flypast.

Capture Mode : Time-lapse
Handler Type : Metadata Tags
Location Accuracy Horizontal : 22.160826
GPS Coordinates : 48 deg 15' 38.16" N, 12 deg 37' 59.52" E, 10537.55 m Above Sea Level
Make : Apple
Model : iPhone 13
Software : 17.5.1
Creation Date : 2024:07:02 02:10:01+01:00

 

[Matt33]

In that video there seems to be another light flying from left to right. A reflection, another airplane?

 

[Mick West]

Using EXIFTOOL to analyse the metadata we can see that an iPhone 13 was used in time-lapse mode to record this video and the time/date and location tags all match for the previously identified flypast.

And not a rough match either - an exact match. The yellow pin here is the GPS coordinates from the video, including altitude.
The video time for the pin is 2:10:01, the planes shown here slightly ahead are at 2:10:09.

This is 100% solved.

 

[Mick West]

The video time for the pin is 2:10:01, the planes shown here slightly ahead are at 2:10:09.

And the time I had for the sitch was 2:09:56, just five seconds off from manually adjusting it.
Here I've updated it to 2:10:01, still perfect match.
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...azonaws.com/1/MunichPlanes/20251021_170133.js

I'd manually figured the timelapse at 16x. At that speed the video covers 1 minute 13 seconds (73 sec). So I recorded that duration on my iPhone and the 73 secs came out at 4.767 seconds or 15.3x.

 

[Matt33]

What's left is the question why Buettner, who had the data and supposedly checked it with Flightradar, didn't find the two planes. The time and coordinates inevitably lead to the encounter between the two aircraft. Maybe he can't interpret UTC timecodes? There might be other possible explanations...

 

[flarkey]

This video goes some way to explain it. He did find the two planes, but he also seems to have found discrepancies in the time codes of either the video or the photos and the ADSB Playback. Plus the rebuttals from the pilots who were adamant that the light wasn't from a plane.


Source: https://youtu.be/yADLnhfvVg4?t=1070

 

[jarlrmai]

A tool like Sitrec makes it startling obvious it is the plane as it basically does a frame by accurate replay of the video.

Maybe the trust in the pilots adamant denial and some time-code error and a lack of suitable tools to visualise it correctly pushed it out of his list of solutions.

And the time I had for the sitch was 2:09:56, just five seconds off from manually adjusting it.
Here I've updated it to 2:10:01, still perfect match.
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...azonaws.com/1/MunichPlanes/20251021_170133.js

I'd manually figured the timelapse at 16x. At that speed the video covers 1 minute 13 seconds (73 sec). So I recorded that duration on my iPhone and the 73 secs came out at 4.767 seconds or 15.3x.

I was going to try and slow the video down to do a realtime comparison, should I use 16x or 15.3x slower?

 

[Mick West]

but he also seems to have found discrepancies in the time codes of either the video or the photos and the ADSB Playback.

He says the plane is "about 2 minutes later". The duration of the video is about 1min13 sec from 1:10:01Z to 1:11:14Z.

The photo does seem to be a bit before that. It's a little fiddly to line up with refraction looming everything, but I reckon about 1:07:40Z
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...com/1/Munich Earlier Stars/20251022_155429.js

So that might explain the discrepancy - the plane was just visible for more than you might think

 

[Mick West]

I was going to try and slow the video down to do a realtime comparison, should I use 16x or 15.3x slower?

They both look pretty similar in Sitrec. I'd probably use 16.

 

[Mendel]

So that might explain the discrepancy - the plane was just visible for more than you might think

it may also explain why it was out of TCAS range initially.
wouldn't be the first time someone misjudged a distance in the dark
(especially if the other aircraft had the landing lights on accidentally)

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

So that might explain the discrepancy - the plane was just visible for more than you might think

Even for a viewer on the ground a distant plane can be visible for 10+ minutes depending on the situation. If you're also at a higher altitude with less haze and obstructions and light pollution, and if the plane happens to have it's landing lights on pointed at you for longer than typical, it could be much longer.

I just recorded two timelapse videos on an iPhone.

For my files, if you use exiftool, the difference between the top two lines below is the wall clock time duration of the recording. And the 'Duration' is the video length after the time compression.

10m3s -> 20.07s = 30.04x

Media Create Date               : 2025:10:22 17:43:34
Creation Date                   : 2025:10:22 13:33:31-04:00
Duration                        : 20.07 s

1m14s -> 4.77s = 15.51x

Media Create Date               : 2025:10:22 18:11:09
Creation Date                   : 2025:10:22 14:09:55-04:00
Duration                        : 4.77 s

So Dr. Buettner's PDF presentation (linked earlier in the thread and available publicly via Dr. Buettner's personal github) has a high quality (possibly original) version of the video embedded in it, extracting it and analysing the metadata confirms the time and location and thus the flight is the one identified by this thread and as such the oncoming aircraft would have been visible and matches exactly the movement of the object seen in the UFO video.

View attachment 85191

Using EXIFTOOL to analyse the metadata we can see that an iPhone 13 was used in time-lapse mode to record this video and the time/date and location tags all match for the previously identified flypast.

Capture Mode : Time-lapse
Handler Type : Metadata Tags
Location Accuracy Horizontal : 22.160826
GPS Coordinates : 48 deg 15' 38.16" N, 12 deg 37' 59.52" E, 10537.55 m Above Sea Level
Make : Apple
Model : iPhone 13
Software : 17.5.1
Creation Date : 2024:07:02 02:10:01+01:00

For this file, you get these two timestamps though:

Media Create Date               : 2024:08:21 19:30:14
Creation Date                   : 2024:07:02 02:10:01+01:00

The 2024:08:21 date could be the date that the video was edited to brighten it. If we had the original file with unmodified metadata we could determine the exact time window and time-scaling factor.

 

[jarlrmai]

The brightness increase seems to be something changing the auto exposure on the iPhone as it happens over several frames of transition so seems unlikely to be a post processing thing.

Okay it's more like it happens in 1 frame and then the noise reduction or something takes 4 frames to kick in..

 

[FatPhil]

... pilots who were adamant that the light wasn't from a plane.

Given that surgeons get wrong-site training after removing testicals rather than tonsils, will these pilots be given training to help them not make the same mistake again? It is a mistake that has safety implications.

 

[Mendel]

It is a mistake that has safety implications.

what would these be? I don't see them.

 

[Mick West]

Buettner posted a statement on Reddit, from him and the pilot.

Statement from Dr. Doug Buettner and the Anonymous Pilot

We are providing this coordinated statement on behalf of both myself (Dr. Doug Buettner) and the anonymous pilot. We have been monitoring the ongoing discussions on this platform and on Metabunk.org regarding this case. On one hand, we are encouraged by the level of public interest in what has been a genuinely perplexing experience for the pilots and a scientifically intriguing case for Dr. Buettner. On the other hand, we are disappointed and saddened by the number of speculative and, in some instances, defamatory claims concerning both the pilot's decision to submit the photographs and Dr. Buettner's actions in relation to the potential oncoming aircraft.

To clarify: Dr. Buettner did, in fact, inform both pilots that ADS-B data indicated that an oncoming aircraft was roughly consistent with the observed direction, visible down the starboard side. However, there were notable discrepancies between the ADS-B timestamps and GPS data with the imagery recorded during the flight. Both pilots have confirmed that they observed the object closely as it passed; yet neither pilot could discern any visible structure, whatsoever — only the bright main light accompanied by two smaller lights that appeared to not be physically connected to anything.

Dr. Buettner agreed to continue examining the case due to its scientific interest and subsequently sought permission to reference it during a presentation at IFEX. We both feel this case highlights a broader aviation safety issue: pilots routinely observe aerial phenomena that cannot be readily explained, and while some may later be attributed to conventional causes, such as other aircraft, the immediate uncertainty in real time remains a valid operational safety concern. The insistence that "it must have been an oncoming aircraft" may satisfy online debunkers and UFO/UAP naysayers alike, but it does NOT satisfy the professionals in the cockpit when the observation is not in line with their many years of experience after they directly witness such events.

The anonymous pilot wishes to clarify several key observations:

There were no discernable position lights (red or green), no strobe lights (flashing white), and no cabin illumination or visible aircraft structure of any kind. Even if another aircraft's landing lights had somehow remained on or extended during the cruise phase of flight — which is highly irregular — this would not account for the two smaller lights observed around the periphery of the primary bright light. These smaller lights were seen to move in relation to the central bright source rather than remain fixed, as would be expected from navigation or wingtip lights. They could not plausibly be attributed to wing or taxi lights either, as doing so would require an extreme bank angle inconsistent with maintaining level flight, amounting to a serious incident in unto itself.

Continuing with our joint statement:

Dr. Buettner welcomes contact from the pilots of the other aircraft identified on ADS-B to establish whether they were operating without external lighting or if a technical malfunction may have been present. However, in the professional opinion of the anonymous pilot, there is no known aircraft defect that could simultaneously activate landing lights while disabling all navigation, position, strobe, cabin, and logo lights, and at the same time deactivate the transponder so that no TCAS information is displayed.

Further, Dr. Buettner is also considering additional optical modelling using Blender as he has done in the past (see for example: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08155) to determine whether the identified aircraft could produce the observed light configuration through optical reflections off the main body of the reported aircraft and, if so, under what reflection conditions.

Regarding the pilot's anonymity: the decision not to disclose his/her identity is deliberate. The pilot does not wish to bring their airline into disrepute, attract undue attention, or risk professional consequences. There remains a strong taboo in aviation culture surrounding the reporting of unexplained aerial observations, and this stigma discourages open reporting by flight crew who fear and have incurred reputational damage when they have.

As a next step, the anonymous pilot will be gathering comparative images and videos of other aircraft passing at night to demonstrate to the public what a 'typical' night-time encounter normally looks like.

Dr Doug Buettner and the Anonymous Pilot

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1o0h06x/comment/nks2vpv/

 

[Mick West]

He also emailed me. I told him:
"I think the light configuration is just reflections in the laminated windshield of what is essentially a single bright light (the landing lights of the oncoming plane). It's by far the brightest light in the scene, so the only one where you see the reflections."

Then I read this:

There were no discernable position lights (red or green), no strobe lights (flashing white), and no cabin illumination or visible aircraft structure of any kind. Even if another aircraft's landing lights had somehow remained on or extended during the cruise phase of flight — which is highly irregular — this would not account for the two smaller lights observed around the periphery of the primary bright light. These smaller lights were seen to move in relation to the central bright source rather than remain fixed, as would be expected from navigation or wingtip lights. They could not plausibly be attributed to wing or taxi lights either, as doing so would require an extreme bank angle inconsistent with maintaining level flight, amounting to a serious incident in unto itself.

Which did not change my mind.

I just went to the Las Vegas Airport Webcam, and this was the first thing I saw

(you can see the same thing pretty much constantly in the evening there)
The other lights simply would not be visible at a distance, as they would be hidden by the glare of the landing lights.

 

[Matt33]

Well, the ones are "naysayers" (with pretty good arguments though) the others apparently want to believe (ironically with pretty much only "nay" as argument).
Too bad that it's probably too tedious to reach out for the other pilots to ask if they left their lights on by any chance.

 

[Mendel]

Well, the ones are "naysayers" (with pretty good arguments though) the others apparently want to believe (ironically with pretty much only "nay" as argument).
Too bad that it's probably too tedious to reach out for the other pilots to ask if they left their lights on by any chance.

It's not hard to reach out to the airline and ask them to pass a message on to the pilots. @Mick West may already have done so.

The arguments on both sides are more involved than "nay", although the hard evidence clearly favors one side over the other.
Considering how improbable it is for an actual aircraft to be exactly where the UFO is on the video.

 

[jarlrmai]

However, there were notable discrepancies between the ADS-B timestamps and GPS data with the imagery recorded during the flight

There, demonstrably, using the data in Dr. Buettners video embed was not, it's a precise exact match.

 

[jarlrmai]

Dr Buettner's claim now essentially says a bright luminous UFO flew just in front of another aircraft, matching precisely the position and speed and angles needed to mimic the movements of that aircraft as viewed from the observing flight that was there at that time, correlated exactly with the metadata from the video as shared by Dr. Buettner and the ADS-B data. If Dr. Buettner has other unshared data that is contradictory to this they need to show it now and it's still unclear why it wasn't mentioned before.

Addtionally it seems odd this luminous object was not reported by the pilots of the other aircraft as I imagine it would have been blinding from their perspective given it was essentially on top of them, there's also no mention or record of shared ATC chatter from either plane reporting this incident.

What are the rules for commercial pilots using iPhones in the cockpit? I presume given the fixed time-lapse position this was a pre-setup mounted device in the cockpit.

And if this was truly strange they observed for over 1 minutes but did not switch to video or get another device on it etc?

 

[FatPhil]

what would these be? I don't see them.

Unless collsions have suddenly become not matters of safety, I'd say that the inability to distinguish between a collision hazard and a non-hazard would fit the bill.

 

[jarlrmai]

Unless collsions have suddenly become not matters of safety, I'd say that the inability to distinguish between a collision hazard and a non-hazard would fit the bill.

TCAS would/should have gone off if there was a collision chance and the ADSB shows the aircraft were not in TCAS alert range, there was no danger of collision, unless of course it was a UFO and suddenly veered off from following the exact course of the aircraft towards the observational aircraft..

 

[FatPhil]

TCAS would/should have gone off if there was a collision chance and the ADSB shows the aircraft were not in TCAS alert range, there was no danger of collision, unless of course it was a UFO and suddenly veered off from following the exact course of the aircraft towards the observational aircraft..

Don't take my word for it, take a pilot's (emphasis mine):
"We both feel this case highlights a broader aviation safety issue: pilots routinely observe aerial phenomena that cannot be readily explained, and while some may later be attributed to conventional causes, such as other aircraft, the immediate uncertainty in real time remains a valid operational safety concern."

 

[jarlrmai]

An example of pilot error regarding landing lights. in this case the pilot forgets to turn them on during landing:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT4IDxZu6tc


In this very similar Metabunk investigation the observing pilot accepts as reasonable the explanation of the other aircraft operators accidentally leaving the landing lights on:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/n1...-bright-light-pass-by-his-plane-reddit.13918/

 

[Mendel]

What are the rules for commercial pilots using iPhones in the cockpit?

That depends on the airline.

Article:

The Sterile Cockpit/Flight Deck concept involves the restriction of flight crew member activity to that which is operationally essential during busy phases of flight - taxi out, take off, initial climb, intermediate and final approach, landing, and taxi in.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Manual on the Prevention of Runway Incursions defines Sterile Flight Deck as "any period of time when the flight crew should be not be disturbed, except for matters critical to the safe operation of the aircraft."

Source: https://skybrary.aero/articles/sterile-flight-deck

During cruise (as this was), the pilot-not-flying is basically free to do non-flying things like eating, drinking a coffee, or taking pictures if the airline allows it.

 

[Mendel]

Don't take my word for it, take a pilot's (emphasis mine):
"We both feel this case highlights a broader aviation safety issue: pilots routinely observe aerial phenomena that cannot be readily explained, and while some may later be attributed to conventional causes, such as other aircraft, the immediate uncertainty in real time remains a valid operational safety concern."

We always hear this from ASA, but I'm not buying it.
The only concern here might be that a pilot thinks there is a threat where there is none, and acts rashly, and through that action, endangers the aircraft. But I don't think there is any precedent for this.

Uncertainty is not a problem in and of itself.
Misplaced certainty is.

 

[jarlrmai]

Even for a viewer on the ground a distant plane can be visible for 10+ minutes depending on the situation. If you're also at a higher altitude with less haze and obstructions and light pollution, and if the plane happens to have it's landing lights on pointed at you for longer than typical, it could be much longer.

I just recorded two timelapse videos on an iPhone.

For my files, if you use exiftool, the difference between the top two lines below is the wall clock time duration of the recording. And the 'Duration' is the video length after the time compression.

10m3s -> 20.07s = 30.04x

Media Create Date               : 2025:10:22 17:43:34
Creation Date                   : 2025:10:22 13:33:31-04:00
Duration                        : 20.07 s

1m14s -> 4.77s = 15.51x

Media Create Date               : 2025:10:22 18:11:09
Creation Date                   : 2025:10:22 14:09:55-04:00
Duration                        : 4.77 s

For this file, you get these two timestamps though:

Media Create Date               : 2024:08:21 19:30:14
Creation Date                   : 2024:07:02 02:10:01+01:00

The 2024:08:21 date could be the date that the video was edited to brighten it. If we had the original file with unmodified metadata we could determine the exact time window and time-scaling factor.

The presence of the Apple signature tags:

com.apple.photos.originating.signature : AUa/ucR5uYftHH6LVEwB4aHo1zdu

This seems to indicate the file was shared from the device via the Apple ecosystem, as in shared from the iPhone via email etc

This probably means that the new dates you get are likely the date and time of this action (ie the pilot sharing the video)

But I don't have an iPhone to test this.

 

[Mauro]

We always hear this from ASA, but I'm not buying it.
The only concern here might be that a pilot thinks there is a threat where there is none, and acts rashly, and through that action, endangers the aircraft. But I don't think there is any precedent for this.

I think the concern is actually valid, even if probably minor in the global context of aviation risks. There is at least a clear precedent I'm aware of, an Air Canada 767 risked a collision with a C-17:

The first officer saw a bright object ahead of the plane – the planet Venus – and mistook it for the approaching C-17. The captain corrected him and said the C-17 was straight ahead and 1,000 feet below. At that point, the captain of the Air Canada jet and the C-17 pilots flashed their planes' landing lights at each other to acknowledge their position.

But the first officer, still believing that the object in the sky above him was the cargo plane, initiated a dive to avoid the perceived imminent collision – sending the jetliner toward the Air Force plane. The captain saw what was happening and immediately pulled back on the control column in a frantic attempt to increase altitude.

It sent passengers who were not wearing their seat belts flying.

Fourteen passengers and two flight attendants were injured.

Pilot sends plane into dive after mistaking Venus for oncoming plane

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Whichever side of the fence you sit on considering safety concerns, it all boils down to not necessarily trusting your eyes and therefore having instruments that are able to give a better/clearer "picture".

No one would argue against better safety, but you can't get better eyes to improve safety.

 

[JMartJr]

Dr Buettner's claim now essentially says a bright luminous UFO flew just in front of another aircraft, matching precisely the position and speed and angles needed to mimic the movements of that aircraft as viewed from the observing flight that was there at that time, correlated exactly with the metadata from the video as shared by Dr. Buettner and the ADS-B data.

Add to that... and ONLY as seen from this plane that happened to have a camera recordingn it. From any other angle it would be visibly not the plane, somehow it is only hiding from the plane where the camera was...

I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I ain't buying that!

 

[Mendel]

There is at least a clear precedent I'm aware of, an Air Canada 767 risked a collision with a C-17:

and we talked about this before, this was my answer:

The planet Venus was not at fault in this example.

At that time another aircraft was enroute in opposite direction at FL340 and appeared on the Boeing's TCAS display. The captain adjusted his navigation display while the first officer attempted to acquire visual contact with the traffic but mistook planet Venus for the aircraft until the captain pointed out the aircraft was at 12 o'clock and 1000 feet below.

Source: https://avherald.com/h?article=4362ebf0/0000&opt=0 The main reason identified in the accident report was that the FO was very sleepy. The misidentification was momentary and did not contribute to the accident.

Note that in this example, they had identified the oncoming aircraft, they saw it on the TCAS display, and knew its altitude. It's the exact opposite of the occurrence in this thread.

The commonality is that the PF misinterpreted what his eyes saw, and acted on it instead of trusting his instruments. To quote myself:

The only concern here might be that a pilot thinks there is a threat where there is none, and acts rashly, and through that action, endangers the aircraft.

But this was not caused by a misidentification, or any uncertainty.
It happened because the pilot misjudged the altitude of the oncoming aircraft, instead of trusting his instruments.

Uncertainty is not a problem in and of itself.
Misplaced certainty is.

 

[Mick West]

New (I think) article:

Article:

The anonymous pilot would like to clarify some crucial observations:

• No position lights (red or green), no strobe lights (flashing white), no cabin lighting , and no visible aircraft structure were visible.
• Even if the landing lights of another aircraft had remained unusually switched on during the cruise phase – which is extremely atypical – this would not explain the two smaller lights moving around the main light source.
• These smaller lights moved relative to the central light , instead of remaining fixed as one would expect navigation or wingtip lights to do.
• An explanation involving wing-mounted or taxiing lights is also unlikely, as this would require an extreme tilt angle of the aircraft, which would be incompatible with stabilized level flight – and would in itself constitute a serious event.

...
Furthermore, Dr. Buettner is considering conducting additional optical simulations with Blender – as he has done in previous work ( see here ) – to examine whether the identified aircraft could have caused the observed light configuration through reflections on the aircraft surface and under what conditions this would be possible.

Source: https://www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de/kontroverse-um-piloten-ufo-sichtung-nahe-muenchen/

The small lights seem to be a sticking point. But they don't seem to address what seems like the most reasonable explanation—that it's internal reflections in the multi-layer aircraft window. You only see them because the main light is the landing lights, which wipes out everything else.

The plane is a 737-800, and this is what they see.

Here's a 737 landing at night (Amsterdam, runway 36C)

Source: https://youtu.be/DZTtUWz24no?t=154


Out of focus, but we see similar reflections around the brightest of ground lights around Rwy06

Note you don't see it on all lights. Only the very brightest ones

Here, I've stabilized it on one light

And zoomed in

This is just cropped from a wide-angle shot that is more focused on the cockpit. If it were instead a zoomed-in shot of the ground lights, then it would be much closer to the UAP video.

The position of the reflections relative to the main light will depend on the angle of the line of sight from the camera to the light through the glass.